HP isn't the only one bursting Microsoft's bubble. Microsoft Watch recently reported on the dismal pronouncement on the state of Vista adoption among top businesses. The really bad news for Microsoft is the number of business PCs running Windows XP increased from 2007 to 2008 -- three times the increase in the percentage of PCs running Windows Vista...In a survey reportedly conducted by a systems management appliance company, 60 percent of those surveyed have no plans to deploy Windows Vista and 42 percent are actually exploring Vista alternatives. 11 percent have already made the switch to Mac OS X or Linux.

Wow. Although quoting the statistics from "a survey reportedly conducted by a systems management appliance company" is mighty vague, I'll bet it's not far off. Add to that the rise of the netbook, and it's just looking better and better for Linux.

Linux is the OS that propeller heads use. If a noob tries to install it, encounters a problem and asks for help, they get the standard "RTFM" response, or perhaps a lecture on why something that doesn't work for them or is difficult to use is actually what they want. Ubuntu is the free alternative to windows which is heaps easier to use and has community support which is friendly, welcoming and extremely helpful.

Yeah, yeah, I know Ubuntu uses a Linux kernel and gnu tools, but it has established a brand which is seen as friendlier to non technical users than the Linux brand. The fact that one is an essential part of the other doesn't matter to people who don't no any better or care.

Because the real reason windows is such a bad product is that it tries to cater to people with your attitude.

The problem with that however is that computers are still fairly complex pieces of machinery. It is not so much that a computer is so complex, countless hopeless people use computers numerous times each day. I see people who have trouble opening a web page operaring unix machinery. Modern copiers for instance run on a unix system, factory machines rarely run on Windows.

The advantage with these systems is that they have one task and that task is the only thing they do and all their hardware is pre-selected and pre-configured.

Most of the trouble with PC's comes from the fact that so many people have different configurations and desires as to how they should operate. Easy of use goes out of the window when you want flexibility. Good luck programming a wizard that can deal with every network setup people have dreamed up in their homes.

At a given point, sooner or later the user when he is going to do something more then the most basic tasks on the most basic setup is going to have to get his head around more advanced concepts like IP address. So it is better if he is introduced to it gently overtime rather then having to learn it all at once when he has a task to complete.

Time for the famous car analogy. When do you teach a new driver how to break. When the car is standing still, when he first got it moving forward OR when it is approaching a concrete pillar at 120 km an hour in a snowstorm?

That is the entire idea between anti-slip courses, prepare ahead of time in a safe enviroment when the driver can take it slow and there is no real pressure so that when the time comes, he has some chance of knowing what to do. Sure, car dealers LOVE to hide the fact that their cars can slip, but a prudent driver nonetheless learns about it.

Same with OS'es that LOVE to pretend running a computer is oh so easy. Everything is automatically taken care off, you don't need to learn anything how it works. Until a virus destroys all their work, a failing drive that has been warning for months collapses with all their family photos on it, or they have to give up in dispair because they are trying to get a game to work and nobody seems willing to explain to them what IP means.

Most people have at decent enough intelligence to master any number of concepts, barring those suffering from a mental handicap, users can learn the basic concepts about computers and should do so, just as they learn the basic concepts of any number of things to help operate them efficiently.

Creating an OS that pretends you don't need to know anything about computers to use them, don't need to think is the same as producing a car that pretends it can never loose traction. Of course, that is not good marketing. But everytime you read a story about some car being wrapped around a tree when there was no reason (no alcohol, no excessive speeding) that is what caused it. A driver who thought his car would magically stick to the road when it didn't.

Same with every "my soundcard don't work in X", "I can't connect to Y" complaint. Do you realize how silly it is to just go out, pick up the first soundcard you find, plug it in and expect it to work? That would be like just buying a random piece of electrical equipment and expecting you can just plug it in, from the net (get it? Different voltages exist around the world and it is thanks to regulation and basic education that people 'know' this and can expect stores to carry the right equipment.)

Do you need to know what voltage your radio uses to listen to it? No, not directly, but those who do know are better of from not frying their equipment on holiday or buying dodgy gear.

Ubuntu is a nice version of GNU/Linux, it doesn't use GNU/Linux it IS GNU/Linux. The notion that you need less knowledge to use it then other versions is dangerous, it may work fine for a pre-installed system being used in a way someone else predicted and catered

Because the real reason windows is such a bad product is that it tries to cater to people with your attitude.

So let me get this straight... the fact that there are people out their that perceive Linux and Ubuntu as different brands has nothing to do with whether or not they are perceived as different brands, computer OSes are easy for non-technical users to use unless they do something which is not easy and don't expect any old sound card to work. How does that have anything to do with my attitude and how does my attitude have anything to do with the product development of windows.

If you are drunk or stoned, that's cool, just try re-reading my post when you aren't. If you're one of those knee jerk reactionary open source zealots, don't bother re-reading the post and also please avoid user forums frequented by noobs and also avoid technical positions where your clients are non technical unless they are insulated by an experienced business analyst. You re-enforce a couple of negative perceptions of the Linux brand.

My post was purely looking at things from a branding point of view. I am one of those technical users who switched to Ubuntu because it has great hardware support and defaults to something closer to what I want than others I have tried including several years of Debian unstable. I still go in and change things because I know how, I build some of my own drivers and I help friends who are less technically savvy. I enjoy that I can install a powerful system with defaults I mostly like and then customise it in a matter of hours instead of the days it used to take me which is of course all down to personal preference.

So My attitude is not about shielding users from the system completely, but about providing a friendly experience to those who are not confident with a powerful back end system. Ubuntu has that BRAND PERCEPTION amongst a load of people I know while Linux has the BRAND PERCEPTION of being difficult. Understand?

Next time you have a build up of energy, try wanking in private. You'll enjoy it more, and you won't annoy others.

Just to be clear on that point, in a lot of places across the globe the EULA is meaningless. In most places all conditions of contract must be available at the point of sale, prior to purchase, ie for software clearly printed on the outside of the box, clicky button post purchase means nothing.

The really silly thing about all of this as far as M$ should be concerned whether Vista or Xp is being sold should make no difference. Of course as far as ballmer is concerned, as vista is his disaster, he is trying desperately to protect himself from his self evident failure.

Now of course as far as the M$ shareholders are concerned, Vista is a multi billion dollar waste of money, with even more money being thrown away on pointless advertising, it is making M$ look arrogant in it's attempts to force customers to buy it in preference to XP, nobody believes any of the Vista sales figures any more because every knows by know that most of them are in reality XP downgrades and for Vista to be counted as successful the only sales figure that counts is upgrades, so Vista either makes or loses money based upon upgrades only, as OEMs sales would have occurred for XP at a similar rate with out the additional investment.

Yeah--if you're in the enterprise licensing program. But if you're not, you can't 're-use' licenses. XP OEM is licensed per-machine. If you buy a PC with XP pre-installed or buy an OEM copy of XP and install it on a PC--and then that PC dies, you can't go install that copy of XP anywhere else. (If the machine is still under warranty, you can get a replacement, with a replacement copy of XP and a new serial number...)

And there is the problem. Most business can't legally reuse licenses. OEM licenses can't be reused. Microsoft is trying to make it so the only way you can get a license so you can install XP, is to buy Vista.

> this is true. they may just hit 3% market share in the uk before> the end of the decade. woohoo!

I dunno, things are looking up lately. I know Amazon isn't exactly the first place people go to buy a computer but they publish a ranking chart in realtime. I looked at it yesterday and noticed some interesting figures on the laptop chart. These numbers are for the top 25 sellers:

Linux 9WinXP 6Vista 5OS X 5

Even when you combine the Windows numbers you still have a very respectable 11/9/5 spread. And if you buy the Apple hype that OS X is a UNIX the Windows vs *NIX battle is 14 to 11.

The mininote has opened up a whole new front in the OS Wars. Of course if you ranked em by dollar volume Linux would be dead last since all of the Linux based machines are much less expensive than the fancy Sony and Apple kit.

Great point! I have noticed the Asus Eee and the Acer AspireOne are attracting a lot of attention. At the local Staples (the only electronics store of any note in my town) people are fascinated with them. They're small, quiet, powerful enough to play music and videos, have wireless access to the Internet and do basic office suite work for under $400. The ones on display are running Linux.

Granted, they also have the option of running a stripped-down (???) version of XP, but people I've seen playing with them seem to like the Linux interface and have no problem figuring it out.

Maybe the desktop is no longer the crucial front in the struggle to dominate home computing.

Can I just add that we got an Eee Box B202 in for a customer this week and it was a sexy little machine. Atom CPU, 1Gb RAM, 80Gb HDD, 802.11BGN, XP. For a basic PC that can do office work and a little web browsing and such, this is a killer. At $499 the price is right too.

But even then, there is a fast booting mini-os that lets you browse the web without booting windows.

If you buy a PC that uses a Linux BIOS but has XP installed, is that considered an XP sale, a Linux sale, or both? If both, then any of those Asus motherboards with a Linux-based BIOS should be added to the Linux column as well.

I'm not sure that avoidance of Vista translates into good news for Linux. If you have a volume licence to install XP on your whole site, then regardless of what hardware you purchase in the interim, the deadline for switching is 2014 when Extended Support stops. They can sit on XP for that long, I'm sure, by which point the "Vista alternative" being explored will be Windows 7. If you're buying an OS licence tomorow, then getting something other than Vista is a priority, but I wonder how much of MS' business revenue that accounts for.

Boy, that's sure not my recollection. I remember gamers coming over fast, way ahead of both corporations and casual users. XP was such a win in gaming: more stable, better task switching, great backwards compat. Sure there were driver problems, but not so bad, nor for so long. I don't suppose there's any data to really show how it went, prove either of us right.

Team Fortress 2 crashes on exit for me, every single time. Happened on XP, then on Vista 32, now on Vista 64. Meh, could be worse.

Boy, that's sure not my recollection. I remember gamers coming over fast, way ahead of both corporations and casual users.

Might depend on what you played. My recollection is that Win98 hung on for ages after XP arrived, due to compatibility and performance issues.

Remember, Win98 used a tiny fraction of the resources that Windows XP required. XP required VASTLY more RAM and more CPU than 98 to reach even close to the same level of performance. (Sounds familiar to XP - Vista actually.)

This is not really surprising. Gamers stuck it out with Windows 98 long after XP Pro became the defacto corporate standard. It took a good 3 years for XP driver support to get to the point where XP outperformed Windows 98, and I expect nothing less from Vista. The thing that should drive Vista is DX10 and future implementations of DX, and that really falls on game developers before it will drive OS sales to gamers.By the way I am a gamer, I use Vista, and while performance is not on par to XP on this computer, in most games it isn't bad enough to be noticeable or at least not to warrant a reboot into XP.

Parent post is spot on. This is something so many people forget when comparing Vista with XP now. Many of the people complaining about Vista are home users who didn't get their first PC until after XP SP2 was out. They know nothing about XP's first few years.

And in case you're wondering, no I'm not a Vista fan. For the moment, I still hate using it. I'll probably switch to it when it's been out a few years - just like I did with XP. But facts are facts, and rose-colored glasses don't change history.

Well, GP didn't even mention the word "Linux" - he simply cited a statistic that showed Vista is not doing good in comparison with XP.

And besides, you have to remember that Vista took these 15% from XP, not from Linux. This is not newly-taken market share. It is simply a newer version of the same thing. In fact, it shows that only 15% of people upgraded to it, the remaining didn't think the price (or whatever else) was worth it. And since MS is cutting off support and sales of XP, this means these people ha

Windows Vista is just renamed Windows NT6There comes the Windows 7 codename because it is 7th OS release of Windows NT.

Microsoft has done great job by rebranding Windows NT to years or new names like XP and Vista and people really believe that those are different OS's than Windows 2000 or Windows NT4, while they are just newest versions of same OS.

Just like Linux 2.6.x is same OS than Linux 2.4.x but just different version...

But, Vista (NT6) has be out only a over year now, Windows NT itself a much longer,

Which is quite frankly a pathetic figure given the fact that Vista comes pre-installed on just about every machine sold by a whole bunch of vendors (including HP and Dell, who between them account for about 57% of US PC sales), whereas OS X only comes pre-installed on Apple computers (8.5% of US PC sales).

No matter which way MS and their supporters try to spin things, there's something severely wrong when an OS that's been pre-installed on 90% of the PCs sold for

there's something severely wrong when an OS that's been pre-installed on 90% of the PCs sold for for the last 2 years....

The OEM Vista install began in late January 07. DX10 systems began entering the market only in late spring and summer of 07. XP has been around since August 01. OEM Vista sales have been strongest at the Vista Premium level. That implies an investment in hardware equivalent to the mid-line Mac.

But they began selling the Vista Express Upgrade scheme with OEM systems in October 2006. As MS used these in their original "we sold 60 million Vista licenses in the first 100 days" figures, it's reasonable for me to count October 06 as the day OEMs began selling Vista licenses to people.

"DX10 systems began entering the market only in late spring and summer of 07"

And this makes a difference in what way when most of the PCs sold are laptops, and the bulk of t

Add to that the rise of the netbook, and it's just looking better and better for Windows XP.

There, fixed that for you.

I'm not knocking linux, it's a perfectly fine OS, but it's not even on the radar for most people.

The headline is a red herring. It doesn't *matter* whether more computers are running vista. The simple fact is that vista licenses are being sold. I'll reiterate that because it's important: People are paying money for vista. It does not matter whether they're installing it.

Large corporations have the agility of 10 story buildings, if they have volume license for XP, they'll run XP into the ground. It's not that they're afraid of vista, they're afraid of change. Linux is a *much* bigger change than Vista for them.

Yes it *does* matter. As long as Vista does not penetrate the market, software stays XP compatible. People and software developers are not using Vista only features.

This means that every day Microsoft does not obtain vendor and customer lock in with Vista. Is another day XP is the target that the Wine Project is trying to hit. Linux with Wine is becoming more and more XP compatible. This is NOT good for Vista. Nor Microsoft in the long run.

How is it not? It may not be exponentially great, but it certainly isn't bad.

Those "Business Users" decide to use it for their home use, you start seeing more and more computers coming with it, more Linux boxes on store shelves, headlines about " X Company Switched To X Linux" then comes "hey, I should check that out too"

With "Business Users" generally creates a little more pressure on the dev's to fix/update/perfect the distro they are working on, and those that develop software packages, are more prone to add support to "Linux X".

However, although a lot of the time it creates more demand for interoperability (which I consider a good thing), it's also possible that it will narrow the Linux Field down to a Linux Patch Of Grass, ie: make the "popular" distro's a bit fewer/merged, but that isn't going to stop anyone from making new distro's, and will have very little effect on those that know the ins & outs of Linux.

Keep in mind that those "Business Users" also use Linux in a managed environment, with all the nasty details like updates and configuration largely taken care of. Seen this way, the switch to home use is still a big leap for a lot of people.

LOL. Nasty updates? I run Debian and it's easier to update Debian than it is any Windows machine I've ever run, as well as having more options to do so. I can update via a gui with auto-notification when updates are available, or I can run the very difficult to understand two commands: "apt-get update" followed by "apt-get upgrade" and all security patches are downloaded and installed, without rebooting.

If I want to switch to the next version of Debian it's simply "apt-get update" followed by "apt-get dist-upgrade". The same functionality is available through the gui too.

Now just tell my how "nasty" it is to upgrade a Linux system. I've upgraded a desktop of mine from starting with Woody, to Sarge, to Etch, to Sid and never had to do a reformat.

Now just go ahead and tell me one more time about how Windows has it all over Linux in doing updates and user-friendliness. You couldn't update directly from 98 to 2000 to XP to Vista if your life depended on it, let alone have it run smoothly and without any problems after the updates.

The depth of ignorance in this place about Linux simply amazes me at times. Geeks shouldn't ought to be that ignorant about technological issues.

No, the learning curve is NOT harder. Most people just completely discount the thousands of hours they have spent learning Windows, but keep track of the time they spend learning Linux. Thus it's "harder" to learn Linux.

I've spent approximately the same amount of time in using both OS's, and it doesn't take any longer to learn one than it does the other.

In many ways Linux is actually easier to learn because nothing is hidden from you. You're not locked out of anything. The only reason some people have a "hard time" learning Linux is because they go into the process thinking the only way anything can be accomplished on a computer is the way MS does things. As a result they "think" Linux is "harder" because it's different.

I don't see how anyone can say it's a "difficult" to see a blinking icon, put your mouse over it and read that you have updates available, click on the icon. then click on a button in the window that pops up that tells the system to update itself. That's easier than Windows update.

And, if you're not allegic to a bash prompt/command prompt entering two very easily memorized commands is not difficult. I prefer the text-based ways to update a system myself. The text based tools will always be more powerful and flexible than any gui.

And installing software? I don't have to go downtown to the big box store or hunt around on the web for software. I open up a gui, search a wizard for software packages sorted into different sections of usage such as "Games and Amusement", "Editors", "Graphics", "Email", "World Wide Web", and so on. I get to choose from 18,000+ packages in one application, in one window. Then just click the checkbox and tell the Synaptic to Apply my choices. That's it. All dependencies are downloaded in installed as well as the choices I made. The packages are all given basic user settings, and there is some documentation for those packages installed at the same time.

business users like control, order and stability. the more business users evaluating linux, the more likely bugs will be discovered and patched, that give linux better features, furthermore, closed source development will evolve, and prosper, IBM already has worked many hours bringing lotus technology to linux, if it thrives and prospers, other closed source developments will follow, vendors will 'lock' into linux platforms based on the solutions available, and some of those solutions will be open source software.

as more business users get used to enterprise class linux solutions, more of them will turn to 'linux' at home as desktop users, some of those users will be talented high paid programmers, with pet needs, and will donate time and energy to free open source software, thus giving a direct payback to linux.

you might as well have asked, why did people use DOS when there was unix developing, or instead of CP/M. they used it because business used it. if business doesn't come back to windows tech, microsoft has lost control of the most important root to have control over. just as ISS never over took apache, microsoft will be in free fall if wide spread linux in the business is adopted.

I find the lack of a good, intuitive Subversion GUI a major roadblock to me booting into Gentoo instead of Windows. Call me crazy if you want, but TortoiseSVN is so much easier to use than anything I've tried in Linux that I boot into Windows just for that.

Anyone have any alternatives? I'd really like one integrated into Gnome (or KDE, I'd switch for this) the way TortoiseSVN integrates with Windows Explorer, but failing that I'd like one more user-friendly than RapidSVN...

Hi there, welcome to Slashdot. Aside from keeping up with twitter sockpuppets, the one thing you need to remember about posting here is that you never, ever mention your sister or your mom. Certainly not in such an exploitable way.

Following these guidelines will result in many years of continued geeky fulfillment. Thank you, and enjoy your stay.

Not really, think of DirectX as a package of features, I'll use DirectFart(tm)(r)(c) as an example to help you understand.

You not only get the DirectPrawn/Direct3DD Graphics hardware acceleration and DirectFhysics allow your graphics engine to have a killer particle engine to produce those greenish vapors and even flames if you have the DirectLighter extention, but you also have to consider the DirectInpoot to control the user experience (usually through tacos and mexican food) and DirectSowwnd to produce the EAX positional audio effects.

Of course you can't forget the most important and distinguishing feature of DirectFart, DirectSmell and DirectX/Forced for when you really gotta push your system to use it's DirectFart feature set.

No worse than learning Vista, or the new version of Office, etc.. I've deployed a number of Linux desktops for a number of large companies. The workers have to be trained on anything they get. The advantages of a centrally managed Linux environment with locked down browser and OO is far more useful than a full blown XP desktop. Fewer techs required to support, can use older or less powerful hardware plus it's harder for users to screw up the system permanently (nothing a kickstart rebuild can't fix).

If your dad can use software right out of the box, I'm envious. Mine finds ways to fuck up surfing the web. It's not entirely his fault--an astonishing number of websites that appeal to right wing, fundamentalist Christian, stock tip-hunting hypochondriacs only "work" with Internet Explorer.

It matters because MS spent alot of time and money developing Vista. If customers continue to demand XP and refuse to upgrade to Vista then that time and money was a waste.

While I'm certainly no MS fan I gotta admit that its sort of a compliment that people like XP so much they refuse to upgrade to Vista. Granted some of that is because of possible problems with Vista, but alot of it is that many people do not see the need to upgrade XP.

1) XP was dramatically improved by code ported from Vista development (SP2, Windows Search, Windows Media Center, etc etc...)2) Businessess are ALWAYS slow to upgrade. I have friends who work at fortune 500 companies who were JUST allowed to install Windows XP from Windows 2000.

If Microsoft hadn't backported a lot of their code for the good of XP users then Vista would have been a tremendously greater shift than it has been. Microsoft could have just said "too bad upgrade" but instead they actually minimized the reasons for people to upgrade in order to keep existing customers happy.

They just raised it... Two weeks ago when I ordered 6 new computers for two different clients it was only a $50 upgrade to get it with XP pre-installed.

Oh well, you can always exercise your downgrade rights under the EULA and use a privious Dell OEM XP Cd if you have one laying around from previous systems, and still be legal without paying the Down/Upgrade tax.

Nope, Any Dell OEM XP Cd shipped since 2000 will work on ANY Dell computer built after 2000. It looks at the BIOS codes... I routinely rebuild client computers and just use the first Dell OEM cd I grab that matches what version it has installed...

Used a Dell OEM XP Sp1 cd from like 2003 on a brand new Dell Laptop the other day after the person decided to open the box himself and go online before we installed antivirus or malware protection software...

Toshiba and HP do lock the OEM software to certain versions. And IBM and Dell lock the Server software to particular models, but not the XP home and Proversions.

You cant use an Dell cd on an HP box without having to call Microsoft and explaining and manually activating the machine.

I work for a computer consulting firm, and we've known about this for months now. In fact, we've switched from selling almost all Dell systems to almost all HP systems because of it; our clients just don't want Vista, and this is a really convenient way to satisfy them. I actually thought HP was doing us a favor shipping the XP systems because we do so much business with them, but I guess it's standard policy!

I hope HP continues to offer this option, because if we're any indication, the OEMs and resellers *really* appreciate it.

I wonder what Microsoft's thinking. Vista does have _some_ nice features, but a very long list of things to worry about. Every one of my IT peers I've talked to (I'm a desktop systems guy) has said their large company is putting off Vista migrations and waiting for Windows 7. We are too, not because we hate it, but because it's just not necessary yet.

It's been a pretty bad combination of factors:- Features cut from the original Vista release that might have made it worth the pain- IT departments who just spent 6 years getting XP stable enough- Bad economy means that IT departments are cutting back, so it's not feasable to implement Vista even if you're a volume license customer. No one has time to research it properly with a reduced staff.- XP SP3 is out, and is looking really good.- Just a general "Oh no, here we go with a new OS again" malaise across IT departments in general.

Small businesses, on the other hand, are perfect Vista candidates. 3-user companies who don't run anything more complex than QuickBooks are Vista's target market right now. And now that it's on every computer you buy at any retail store, there's no reason for a small business to switch back. Large companies are basically not affected by June 30th because we can just buy Vista licenses and downgrade, which explains the inflated sales numbers.

On the "big company" side, I have lots of fun stuff to deal with. Internal web-based apps that were written when ActiveX was king. Business critical software last updated in 1996 and sometimes even before that. A constant mix of brand-new and 8-year-old hardware. Plus a user population that's not necessarily the earliest adopters.

I really hope Microsoft has something big planned for the next release. Swithing to Linux or Mac is totally not feasable for us (again, when you don't have 20 years of legacy Windows code to deal with, it's definitely a consideration.) It would take another major flop on their part to even think about migrating some of our business apps away from Windows.

I think it's quite simple, Windows XP just works and does the job properly.

Windows XP with sp2 or sp3 is rock stable. There is tons of support to be found around the web if you do run in to trouble. You can't imagine a device, no matter how obscure, and you can find decent drivers for it.

Almost all the software you can think of runs on XP by now (except for the odd highly specific packages perhaps)
XP will run nicely on older hardware by now, so no need to upgrade.

Most of the users use XP at home or are already familiar with it, so there is little to none training required.

I know I'm talking to the wrong crowd here but Microsoft actually made XP too good. Businesses and home users have little to none reason to upgrade.

The extra security added in Vista? If configured properly XP can be just as safe.
DirectX 10? Hardly any use for that in a business environment.
Other then that? Not much except for the eye candy.. Woohoo.. yes, that will make your office a lot more productive!

So why would any sane organization go through the trouble of upgrading all the machines, training the employees and running after all the new security holes and troubles that come with a new OS?

Linux and Apple are clearly taking advantage of this situation and MS... Windows 7 must be damn good otherwise Windows domination will soon be a thing of the past.

I think this whole Vista thing will be a disaster for MS far greater then Windows ME ever could be.
MS knew ME wasn't all that good and it was presented as a in-between OS, no big marketing and probbaly not so high expectations profitwise. Vista however was hailed as the 2nd coming of Christ.. well hello there Satan..:)

The quote in the summary misunderstands the slight-of-hand going on in an illustrative way. The controversy IN NO WAY casts doubt on how many copies of Vista have been SOLD. It casts doubt on how many copies of Vista are INSTALLED and being USED.

All the HP sales involve the sale of a Vista license. They're just installing XP instead of Vista (something the Vista license expressly allows). The customer's paying for a Vista license.

The clever marketing trick is MS would like you to believe the 2 numbers are similar, desipte significant evidence to the contrary. They want you to look at the big "sold Vista licenses" number and think "Wow, a lot of people are USING Vista".

Kindof ironic. Earlier this morning I got an e-mail from our IS people outlining the software policy of the school district (I'm currently working for a large school district).

IE7 was found to not have any compatibility issues with current software used so that is allowed but not mandated. Office 2007 seems to work ok, so they will be rolling it out or the compatibility pack updates "soon". And Vista was found to be not compatible, of little usefulness, and generally undesirable. Officially it is to be avoided and the district will look forward to upgrading to Windows 7 when it becomes available.

What this means to us, is that if a new workstation or laptop is requested by a user or their supervisor, and the district cannot procure a machine with XP, the request will be denied. Vista will only be allowed if the user submits a justification of why they need it (IE, have to run some software in the classroom as part of the curriculum that only works with Vista) and that justification is approved by their supervisor and IS.

Vista comes with huge security implications (it that it has some), IE7 as mandatory, and therefore has large compatibility implications for large companies especially.

I know of several huge Microsoft customers that, despite being 100% MS based, still are in the testing/tweaking/certification stage of all their apps before they begin global roll-out. It's in the pipelines, but no one standardises on new workstation OS's until they can guarantee 100% compatibility - which can take a long time.

There's a scarily amount of enterprise-based IE6 only apps out there which alone makes Vista a difficult upgrade (IE6 not being an option on Vista). It's worth it in the end, as frankly, it's a better OS in the long-run IMO.

Gone are the days of writing to c:\windows without repercussion. Gone are the days of dropping kernel hooks in to get better app performance. Thank god.

" reportedly shipping PCs with a Vista Business license but with Windows XP pre-loaded in the majority of business computers sold since the June 30 Windows XP execution date established by Microsoft â" casting a lot of doubt over how many copies of Vista have actually been sold."

While there may be doubt over how many have actually been sold, what this datapoint highlights is not how many copies are being sold but rather how many are being sold but not used.

We have MSDN subscriptions for development and testing work. How are MSDN subscriptions counted for the purpose of this PR? Is each subscription counted as 10 Vista licenses since each subscriber can install 10 concurrent instances (for the use of that subscriber)?

How are the Action Pack subscription counted? Are they counted as 10 licenses per subscriber, or as one?

How are evaluations counted?

How are software assurance licenses counted?

I suspect that in addition to the Vista sold/XP installed sales, the number is vastly inflated due to non-retail and non-oem licenses.

You're not doing it right! Look, you're not supposed to post anonymously. People will think you're a troll! No, you're supposed create an account, say some good stuff about Apple, get modded up, get good karma and THEN post our stuff! You're fired! *throws chair*

Who modded this insightful?
I suppose you believed Bill Clinton when he said he did not inhale (right) and that other time when it all depended on what the meaning of is *IS*...

I needed a copy of Windows XP for my Dell, but in compliance with Ebay's policy, software could only be sold with hardware.
So, I ordered a metal blank case slot cover that said Dell on it, and what do you know? It came with a free copy of Windows XP Professional SP2 for Dell OEM PC's...
Does this mean that metal case bracket sales are up? NO decidedly not.

Even if Microsoft shipped a glazed canned ham and a 6-Pack of Bawlz with a downgrade disk copy of WinXP, they still sold a copy of XP (and some other crap people did not really want). This would not entitle the canned ham department over at Microsoft to claim superior sales versus XP at this point...
-Nobody pays the premium OEM charge for their "downgrade to XP rights and media disk" unless they intend on NOT using Vista and only using XP...

Home customers feel like they just can't do anything about it. A lot of them hate Vista, I have heard people tell me that they got a new computer, and I asked them how it was and they said that it was good except it had Vista on it. And no, these weren't the people who know much about computers. They see that Vista is pathetically slow and they don't want it.

A lot would downgrade to XP if they had either A) the right drivers B) an XP CD and C) the knowledge to downgrade.